The impact of sexual orientation on body image, self-esteem, urinary and sexual functions in the experience of prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer (PCa) poses a large health burden globally. Research indicates that men experience a range of psychological challenges associated with PCa including changes to identity, self-esteem and body image. The ways in which sexual orientation plays a role in the experience of PCa, and the subsequent impact on quality of life (QoL), body image and self-esteem have only recently been addressed. By addressing treatment modality, where participant numbers were sufficient, we also sought to explore whether gay (homosexual) men diagnosed with PCa (PCaDx) and with a primary treatment modality of surgery would report differences in body image and self-esteem compared with straight (heterosexual) men with PCaDx with a primary treatment modality of surgery, compared with gay and straight men without PCaDx. The results of our study identified overall differences with respect to PCaDx (related to urinary function, sexual function and health evaluation), and sexual orientation (related to self-esteem), rather than interactions between sexual orientation and PCaDx. Gay men with PCaDx exhibited higher levels of urinary functioning than straight men with PCaDx, the difference being reversed for gay and straight men without PCaDx; but this result narrowly failed to achieve statistical significance, suggesting a need for further research, with larger samples.

Psychosocial interventions to support partners of men with prostate cancer: a systematic and critical review of the literature.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer poses many challenges for both the man and his partner. Partners have reported a range of issues that impact their own mental health following their partner's diagnosis of prostate cancer. The aim of this review is to summarise and critically evaluate the current literature reporting psychosocial intervention studies for partners of prostate cancer patients. METHODS: An extensive literature search of electronic databases was conducted (OvidMEDLINE 1946, 26th September 2013, and psychINFO 1967, 26th September 2013) using the keywords prostate cancer AND intervention* OR therapy* OR psychosocial intervention* OR support* AND couple* or Spouse* or Partner* or Intimate partner* matched to the title as well as secondary scanning of reference lists. Studies were included if they described interventions for partners of prostate cancer patients, either solely for the partners or as a couple, intended to alleviate distress and enhance the partner's or couple's quality of life, and reported a measurable outcome for partners. RESULTS: A total of 11 prostate cancer-specific intervention studies that included partners and reported separate results for the partners were found. Only one of these interventions was partner specific, the other eight involved the patient-partner dyad. The studies identified primarily focussed on two areas: emotional distress and sexual intimacy, and mixed findings were reported for efficacy of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite strong evidence that partners of men with prostate cancer experience difficulties associated with the impact of prostate cancer, there is limited research that has investigated the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for partners. Of the reviewed studies, it is evident that interventions targeting the reduction of emotional distress, improved communication and sexual intimacy between the couple and utilisation of strategies that enable partners to express their distress, learn new strategies and implement behavioural change show the most promising results in enhancing partner well-being. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Significant progress is required in developing and evaluating appropriate and effective psychosocial support interventions for partners of prostate cancer survivors as partners appear to have significant unmet needs in this area.

The impact of prostate cancer on partners: a qualitative exploration.

OBJECTIVE: Prostate cancer and its treatment can result in numerous physical and psychological morbidities for the patient as well as his partner. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of intimate spouses or partners of men diagnosed and/or treated for prostate cancer to better understand the personal impact of prostate cancer on the partner. METHODS: Twenty-seven partners participated in this study. Six focus groups were convened, and one in-depth interview was undertaken to explore the practical impact of prostate cancer on the intimate spouse/partner. All discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed and then coded using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Six themes emerged: (a) The influence of the man's response to prostate cancer on the partner, (b) The need to be involved in treatment and medical decision making, (c) Supporting a man who is experiencing a loss of masculinity, (d) Degree of congruence between each partner's coping responses, (e) Constrained communication, and (f) Changed roles and increased practical management. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that prostate cancer impacts substantially on many areas of partner well-being. An effective intervention provided to this population seems warranted and may lead to improvements in partner well-being, assist the couple in lessening the impact of prostate cancer and its treatment on their relationship, and assist in the man's recovery.

Does resilience 'buffer' against depression in prostate cancer patients? A multi-site replication study.

Although psychological resilience has been shown to 'buffer' against depression following major stressors, no studies have reported on this relationship within the prostate cancer (PCa) population, many of whom are at elevated risk of depression, health problems and suicide. To investigate the effects of resilience upon anxiety and depression in the PCa population, postal surveys of 425 PCa patients were collected from two sites: 189 PCa patients at site 1 and 236 at site 2. Background data plus responses to depression and resilience scales were collected. Results indicated that total resilience score was a significant buffer against depression across both sites. Resilience had different underlying component factor structures across sites, but only one (common) factor significantly (inversely) predicted depression. Within that factor, only some specific items significantly predicted depression scores, suggesting a focused relationship between resilience and depression. It may be concluded that measures of resilience may be used to screen depression at-risk PCa patients. These patients might benefit from resilience training to enhance their ability to cope effectively with the stress of their diagnosis and treatment. A focus upon specific aspects of overall resilience may be of further benefit in both these processes.